Mosque to go up near New York's ground zero

Obviously those behind the decision to build this Mosque have two audiences in mind:

1) People that refuse to think and continually deny that 9/11 was not done for the reasons presented in the OS. "Blame Muslims, it's all their
fault!"
2) People that refuse to think and continually deny that it was a small faction of the US government combined with other intelligence agencies that
pulled off 9/11. "Inside job! US Government did it!"

Keep falling for it. They want you to fight and divide yourselves. They want you to feel hatred for Muslims and the US Government. They want you to
distrust all the Muslims you come across and distrust anybody associated with the government and/or authority.

How can we ever defeat the real enemy when we are so eager to fight amongst ourselves?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Oh that caused me to think of another example to make my point clear.

Westboro Baptist Church. They go to places they are not welcome (military funerals) and say things that are ugly, hateful, and reprehensible to almost
everyone.

But is it right for them to do so? Is it respectful? Is it wise? Is it civil?

I don't think so.

Just as I would demand WBC leave funerals alone, I would ask that a mosque not be placed within such proximity to "Ground Zero".

They are the same issue. Respect of other people.

Which both incidents, WBC at a funeral saying hate-speech, and a mosque near GZ preaching islam (the widely accepted culprit of 911 in the majority of
populations minds), are basically the same issue at their heart.

If you are going to defend this mosque on the grounds of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, lets see you defend WBC on these same grounds.
Let's be fair now! Thanks.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by muzzleflash]

Why would anyone defend WBC on the same ground? They are different scenarios. Let me elaborate for you.

They go into places they are not welcome. All relegions are welcome anywhere in the US, including near ground zero.

They "say things that are ugly, hateful, and reprehensible to almost everyone." The Muslims that attend the mosque, would go there with intentions
of being inside THEIR mosque, pursuing religion.

They intend to disrupt the military funerals. The people of the Mosque are not disrupting any funerals, or running around saying hateful things to
others.

Now, I understand the point that some may correlate the attacks with the Mosque, but the members of the Mosque did not cause the attacks. Non-Muslims
who were effected may let the correlation effect them emotionally, but think about the Muslims who were effected. They are now also effected by
non-muslims who cannot look past the correlation, and therefore cannot pursue their religion as freely.

A muslim who was effected on 9/11, and lived in that area, may see that mosque as being a place of prayer, because in that exact area, they were
effected by something so tragic.

There are churches of equal distance near ground zero, and as someone else said, if Catholics or Christians were hypothetically the terrorists, would
that make it unnacceptable to be there, because non-Catholics or Christians may be too emotional to look past the correlation?

I'm sure many who were effected that live in that area and are Catholic, attend those Churches and feel a more spiritual connection to the place,
since it is so close to where the tragedy occured. The same can be said for Muslim victims.

Muslim extremists who represent a small population of the Muslim world, are the terrorists. The whole population of Islam, are not the terrorists.

So, use whatever words you want. We all know what it means in the end.

Well, you can't be racist towards a country. Being racist means you hate a race. I can agree with the sentiment that the R word is thrown around far
too often when you can just call them bigots.

Those countries all are roughly the same race, so I think that it's applicable to be racist against those countries. I see your point; it's hard to
be racist against states like the USA because there is so many different races mixed in the same country. However, in places like I listed
previously, where the countries contain the same race (mostly), I believe it's acceptable to use the term racists when it comes to them.

Still having trouble grasping the concept of race, I see. You don't get out much, it appears. Just for fun, next chance you get, how about mentioning
to a Saudi Arab how much he looks and acts like an Iranian Persian? If you'd prefer to keep it all in the same country, Try equating a Pashtun with
an Uzbek next time your sitting around the old camp fire with one.

Get back to me on how that works out for you, y'hear?

Again, I state: "Islam is a RELIGION, not a RACE". Try to follow along, eh?

Welcome to America.. Where freedom is only valued when it doesn't "offend the community".

Too bad this isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

I agree that Constitutional Freedoms are paramount in importance to the development of our society in a positive direction.

That is why I am playing devils advocate here, because I would like people to realize that IF they are going to defend a inflammatory incident like
placing a mosque next to GZ, than I request to see this same defense of various other points of view.

I would like to see them defend a Nazi memorial next to a Jewish synagogue.

Or I would also like to see them defend WBC and their antics at military funerals.

When I start seeing the big detractors of this thread support these other incidents of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion; than my job is
complete.

I just don't think it's fair that such double standards are so common.

Why would you like some to defend those scenarios, when they are not the topic? They are different scenarios, and as much as id like to elaborate on
how they are completely differnt, that is not the purpose of this thread. In my opinion, a Nazi memorial next to a synagogue is wrong, and so is the
WBC and their antics. Why it is different, I won't explain since you are so firm in your beliefs that they are the same case.

Also, I understand you playing devil's advocate, but you seem to be playing it ignorantly since you are making everything so general. And you may
think it's "fun" to get into debates with peoples, but I feel that you intentionally caused some misunderstandings. Therefore I feel like alot of
thought in this thread was wasted in arguing your points (which most were ignorant in my opinion) that you brought up just to have fun. I thought they
were just misunderstandings, but it now seems like alot of your post were intentionally ignorant.

Originally posted by David_Reale
I think they're just trying to piss people off...cause friction between Muslims and others. Because, you know...united we stand, but divided...

Bes not to let it get to you. Remember, it wasn't Muslims that crashed the airplanes into the buildings. It was a bunch of cowardly faithless dogs
who betrayed their religion and the world for the sake of their hatred. They might have done it in the name of their religion but we all know better
than that.

I know it's not on the topic of Muslims..but you know who America's biggest divider is?

Glenn Beck

This douchebag along with many other sensationalist entertainers.

I agree 10000%. When I first saw his show, clicking through channels, I actually thought he was putting on some show or play.. or acting like someone
he saw or talked too--making fun of them. Nope. That's how this crackpot rolls.

Yeah, this 'glenn beck' is doing harm to both sides. He is playing the typical 'everything the dems does is evil, everything the repub's do it
perfect'..

The good thing is that America has seen the light, and is fed up with BOTH 'parties'. Because all both parties cares about is themselves. NOT us.
They failed us. It's time for them to become history. A NEW party will eventually replace them.

Well I'm starting to think MAYBE the rest of the world should stop playing traffic cop.[The US esp] and let the SUNNI and SHias not to mention the
[Hindus= India and Muslim=Pakistan]

HAVE AT IT

I say let em go.

I hear India and Pakistan are nuclear armed!

[edit on 8-5-2010 by SLAYER69]

I'm all for it. Bring the troops home, guard the borders, watch the fun overseas on satellite instead of from the front lines. Might be a few
friendly folks left when the smoke clears and the dust settles.

Just remember, anyone who plans to watch from a lawn chair on the east coast should put on PLENTY of sunblock and a good pair of dark sunglasses
before sitting down facing eastward.

I wouldn't recommend watching from anywhere near this proposed mosque, however. A shia... or a sunni... or a sikh... or a hindu... or someone else
altogether might use the distraction to create an unhealthy environment in the vicinity of it.

Well,as a member of a baptist church(not westboro baptist)
I love going to church every week.Tax dollars did not pay
for the building or the land it is on.Members' tithes and offerings
pays for everything.

A very true statement!Once you convert to islam
you can never leave it.People who have left islam
risk being murdered(honor killing).
Christianity doesn't sound so bad now,does it?
You can leave christianity and not have to spend
the rest of your life looking over your shoulder!

The christian church I go to doesn't preach any of these things.
My pastor preaches against sin,I have never heard him encourage
our members to kill people.I don't know what christian church
you are babbling about, but,it is not ALL of them!

The scriptures that you are quoting are from the law.
We are living in the age of grace,not by the law.People,
who commit these"crimes", are quilty of sinning.All sins
can be forgiven because they were nailed to the cross.

Because our government told us that Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction.Troops were sent to iraq and they bombed
bagdad.I wasn't aware that there are still people who don't know
we are in a "war". 9-11 was the catalyst for invoking the war
on terrorism which led to the invasion of iraq.
Which was the reason my grandsons' were deployed overseas!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.